On 1/18/23 10:05 AM, Andreas S. Kerber wrote:
> Am Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 03:15:43AM -0500 schrieb Helmut K. C. Tessarek:
>>> 2. As you see the 500 errors only in the access log are they only for
>>> HTTP/2.0 or also for other protocol versions?
>
> I can confirm this too. I have a bunch of h2 servers serving static content
> and a very small percentage of HTTP/2.0 requests are logged with a 500 error
> right after upgrading to 2.4.55.
>
> In my case this is on CentOS 7, OpenSSL 1.1.1q, apr-1.6.3, apr-util-1.6.1,
> libnghttp2-1.33
>
> No customer noticed it, since (in my case) it is only about 0,01% of HTTP/2.0
> requests. Downgraded all h2 servers to 2.4.54 and the 500 errors are gone.
>
> First octet, and folder/filenames anonymized. We don't log User Agents or
> anything more than that. I know this is not very helpful. Sorry about these
> very sparse information :-(
>
> XX.200.70.42 - - [18/Jan/2023:08:48:18 +0100] "GET
> /not-revealable/img/rdax_720x390s.jpg HTTP/2.0" 500 -
> XX.188.223.140 - - [18/Jan/2023:08:50:48 +0100] "GET
> /not-revealable/img/favicon.ico HTTP/2.0" 500 -
> XX.88.81.152 - - [18/Jan/2023:08:51:04 +0100] "GET
> /not-revealable/img/favicon.ico HTTP/2.0" 500 -
> XX.88.81.152 - - [18/Jan/2023:08:51:09 +0100] "GET
> /not-revealable/img/favicon.ico HTTP/2.0" 500 -
> XX.179.130.67 - - [18/Jan/2023:08:51:45 +0100] "GET
> /not-revealable/img/Digitae_1570x850px_rdax_720x390p.jpg HTTP/2.0" 500 -
> XX.179.130.67 - - [18/Jan/2023:08:51:45 +0100] "GET
> /not-revealable/img/Slide_rdax_720x390.png HTTP/2.0" 500 -
> XX.179.130.67 - - [18/Jan/2023:08:52:58 +0100] "GET
> /not-revealable/img/Adobetock_259606883_1570x850_rdax_720x390p.jpg HTTP/2.0"
> 500 -
> XX.179.130.67 - - [18/Jan/2023:08:52:59 +0100] "GET
> /not-revealable/img/logo.png HTTP/2.0" 500 -
> XX.247.9.187 - - [18/Jan/2023:08:54:48 +0100] "GET
> /not-revealable/img/Klutrale_1570x850_rdax_720x390p.jpg HTTP/2.0" 500 -
> XX.179.130.67 - - [18/Jan/2023:08:55:11 +0100] "GET / HTTP/2.0" 500 -
Thanks. I understand it only happens with HTTP/2.0 not with other protocol
versions, correct? Anything in the error logs?
Would it be possible for you to run 2.4.55 with loglevel increased?
If yes would it be possible for you to add %L to access log and error log?
Regards
Rüdiger
